Hearing and Lobbying

I attended the hearing of two gun violence prevention (GVP) bills today. The room was packed with gun support folks wearing their maroon T-shirts and many GVP folks wearing orange.  One difference this year was there were no pro-gun supporters brandishing firearms.  They had gotten bad press so they toned it down. The hearing was billed as "informational," meaning no votes were to be taken.

The hearing was chaired by Senator Ron Latz who had introduced two bills: S.F. 2493 which advocated requiring criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including private sales. Presently, Minnesota requires BGCs only for guns purchased from a licensed dealer. Guns sold person to person, on line or from out of a car trunk are not regulated. This is the "gun show loophole." 

The other bill was S.F. 2980, legalizing a gun violence protective order. This bill would legalize a temporary restraint on a person undergoing stress from purchasing a weapon. It is a "petition for relief that the respondent poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or other person by possessing a firearm."

Both sides of each bill were given equal time to present their case.  Several speakers addressed the senators and audience.  In addition, speakers pro and con were selected at random to also speak. The conversation was civil.  Fairness was observed. It was "respectful conversation." 

Gun bills bring out the people! It was clear that the pro-gun folks were defensive about protecting their right to bear arms because they needed to protect themselves from the possibility the government (Obama) would come and take their guns. This is another step towards tyranny. One speaker spoke of Hitler confiscating guns. They opposed both bills and shared statistics that proved in their minds the bills were not necessary. They adhered to the NRA mantra of "never give and inch" because to do so is to allow the government to creep closer to confiscating their weapons and becoming dictatorial. Suspicion and fear were dominant underlying influences for the pro-gun folks. Their arguments were ideological and statistical.

On the other hand, the GVP folks were articulate story tellers as well as statistical hounds. Their message was more personal and tragic, each relating the circumstances which resulted in the gun deaths of family or parishioners. Fear surfaced because of the threat of being shot rather than of the government or Obama coming to tyrannize. The issue was one of personal protection. 

There were contrasting views of government: birther of tyranny vs. protector, fear vs. safety, enemy vs. friend. 

I was chosen to speak in favor of the bills. I said the bills were "pro-life" in the good sense. I related the bills as being consistent with the Biblical witness of creation as God creating humankind in God's Image, that the foundational ethic of Jesus was nonviolence, and the Holy Spirit yielded the fruits of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, generosity and self-control." I spoke of the Columbine and Charleston shooters as probably not being able to access guns if they had been required to undergo a background check. They got their guns through straw purchases.

The next step for the bills is to get them to committees for vote and then to the floor for debate and vote. This will be next year, hopefully.  I say hopefully because it depends on who controls the Senate and House.  Now the power is split and little gets done.  The Republicans will certainly prevent any of these bills from seeing the floor this year. Republicans are the most protective of gun rights, whereas the Dems tend to be considerably more open to GVP laws. I do believe GVP forces are growing in Minnesota and throughout the country.  Too many deaths.  The facts are too brazen to ignore. Also, more GVP people are showing up and speaking up. The pro-gun folks are not intimidating anymore. Not wearing their guns is a signal that they are facing strong opposition. Hope is in the air!

This GVP debate surfaces the purpose of government.  Indeed, government does have a legitimate purpose. I studied Romans 13:1-7 to understand the duty of government: to insure good conduct, to be a servant for the good of the people, and to punish the wrongdoer. Furthermore, these verses are book ended by the injunction to "love." The Preamble ot the Constitution speaks of the government "insuring domestic tranquility." The permission and call for government to do its duty is clear. Can we do it? We must for the sake of obedience to God and the care for human life.

Let the lobbying begin!

Peace!

Just War Principles

and 

Gun Violence Prevention

Do the historical JUST WAR PRINCIPLES (JWP) contribute to the epidemic of gun violence in our nation? We usually consider JWP when addressing military actions of nation against nation. But is there a correlation between the JWP and civilian gun violence? Let's take a look.

A JUST WAR (JW) CAN BE INITIATED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.

ALL NONVIOLENT OPTIONS MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE THE

USE OF FORCE IS JUSTIFIED.

Homicide is a last resort. The shooter believes there is no other way forward. Talk will get you nowhere. The shooter feels the other person wants to do him/her harm. Act now before the other can kill you. Kill or be killed. Similarly, I feel there is no hope, no positive reason for living so I will kill myself to relieve myself of my pain.

THE JW CAN BE INITIATED ONLY BY A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

I am the legitimate authority. I make the rules. My gang gives me permission. I/We am/are power to myself/ourselves. I have the gun. I make the decision to kill myself. 

THE JW MUST REDRESS A WRONG OR BE IN SELF-DEFENSE

The shooter believes the other person has violated and injured them. The other has encroached on his/her rights and poses a threat to his/her personal way of life or to their territory. My "wrong" is that I have been created. I must rid myself so others can feel at peace. 

THE JW HAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS

I can eliminate the other person or group through surprise, good tactics and adequate firepower. I know how the other person or group moves and where they occupy. I can win. A gun insures me of a 95% success rate in killing myself.

THE GOAL IS TO RE-ESTABLISH PEACE

My space, my home, my turf will be peaceful when I eliminate the outside threat. The other person or group is disturbing my peace. I will cancel their menacing presence. The world, my family will be better off with me gone. I cause too much grief and unhappiness.

A JW IS PROPORTIONAL TO INJURY SUFFERED

The other person or group wants to destroy me. They have guns or can easily gain access to a weapon. All types of weapons are available to the other person or gang. Others have done violence to me so I am going to make them pay.

WEAPONS USED MUST DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE INNOCENT

AND THE RIGHTFUL TARGET

It is too bad if the innocent are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I must take action when the other is vulnerable. In this way there is less chance of me being hurt. Do the action and get out. People should not hang out with the "wrong" people. I will only hurt myself.  I will not take another's life.

Do the historical JWP contribute to the epidemic of gun violence? Yes. Each principle can provide justification for gun violence. Violence occurs when reasons justify violence. Reasons are easy to create. 

I believe JWP have contributed to a culture of justified violence in all facets of life: personal, community and national, homicidal as well as suicidal. JWP have provided convenient moral reasons for violence. Hence, the entire scope of JWP needs to be called into question. The JWP are "green lights" for carnage.

PEACE!